Filed 2/13/24 In re C.Z. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re C.Z. et al.,

Persons Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B326645

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP00986-EF)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Pete R. Navarro, Commissioner. Dismissed.

Marissa Coffey, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County 

Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION 

E.Z. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order. 

Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the court erred in finding that the 

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. 

Mother contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the initial inquiry and notice 

requirements under ICWA. DCFS responds that “mother’s appeal should be 

dismissed because ICWA obligations are ongoing and can be raised and cured 

in the juvenile court.” Because a finding regarding the application of ICWA 

was neither made at the disposition hearing from which mother appeals, nor 

at any point earlier in the case, the sole claim on appeal is premature. 

Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

We recite only facts relevant to mother’s appeal. P.M. (father) and 

mother have two children together: C.S.Z. (born Sept. 2011) and C.Z. (born 

Jan. 2013). 

In a prior dependency case, maternal grandfather told a dependency 

investigator that maternal great, great grandmother (Alberta B.) had Indian 

heritage through the Blackfeet Indian tribe. Maternal grandfather provided

the names of maternal great grandparents. The investigator indicated that 

previous minute orders did “not indicate ICWA findings.”

On August 31, 2022, DCFS filed the current dependency petition on 

behalf of the children, which included an Indian child inquiry attachment. 

This attachment indicated mother was asked about any Indian heritage on 

July 27, 2022. Mother reported she may have Indian ancestry through 
3

maternal relatives. Therefore, DCFS stated that it had “reason to believe the 

child[ren] [are] or may be . . . Indian child[ren].” 

On September 14, 2022, counsel for mother filed a parental notification 

of Indian status (ICWA-020 form) on mother’s behalf indicating that none of 

the questions about Indian status applied. However, counsel, not mother,

signed the form. 

At a hearing on September 15, 2022, mother reported to the juvenile 

court that she had Blackfeet Indian heritage and stated maternal 

grandfather would have more information. When asked by the court if there 

were other relatives to contact, mother replied there were no additional 

relatives except maternal grandfather. The court then ordered DCFS to 

notice the tribe, interview maternal grandfather, “and ascertain and acquire 

more information regarding any possible membership or eligibility or 

membership of the [tribe].” DCFS was further ordered to provide notice to 

the appropriate federal agencies. 

On September 22, 2022, the dependency investigator mailed certified 

notices to mother, father, the Secretary of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, and the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana. The investigator also sent a

letter to the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana inquiring about the children’s 

eligibility for enrollment in the tribe. The letter included the names and 

birthdays of the parents and children. 

On October 12, 2022, the court sustained the dependency petition as 

amended by interlineation. The court ordered “DCFS to comply with its 

ongoing ICWA obligations.”

On October 25, 2022, the dependency investigator spoke with maternal 

grandfather, who reported that he did not know of any Indian tribes with 

which his family was affiliated. The Blackfeet Nation submitted a letter 
4

dated December 8, 2022, reporting the children were not eligible for 

enrollment. 

At the dispositional hearing on January 24, 2023, the court declared 

the children dependents and removed the children from mother’s custody. 

There was no discussion of ICWA at this hearing. 

Mother timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Mother's sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in 

finding that the ICWA did not apply absent a sufficient initial inquiry and 

ICWA notice. DCFS contends mother’s appeal is premature and the ICWA 

challenge is not ripe for review. We agree. 

We see no appealable order regarding ICWA, or an actionable finding, 

in this case. The court made no finding as to ICWA at or before the 

disposition hearing. Rather, the ICWA inquiry was still ongoing, as 

evidenced by the court’s prior ICWA compliance order of October 12, 2022. 

Because the court made no ruling at or before the challenged hearing 

on whether ICWA applied to the proceedings, mother’s claim is premature. 

“That is, any ICWA issues are not ripe for review. ‘“Ripeness” refers to the 

requirements of a current controversy.’ (City of Santa Monica v. Stewart 

(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 59.) An issue is not ripe for review unless and 

until it is ‘sufficiently concrete to allow judicial resolution even in the absence 

of a precise factual context.’ (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal 

Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 170; see id. at pp. 170–172.)” (J.J. v. Superior 

Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 447, 461.) The dependency case is still ongoing,

and any perceived deficiencies with ICWA inquiry and noticing may still be 

resolved. (See In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 904 [ICWA claim was 
5

premature where no final ICWA ruling was made at disposition hearing].) 

Therefore, we decline to assess the adequacy of the ICWA inquiry and 

noticing process that is, based on the record before us, still ongoing.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZUKIN, J.

We concur:

CURREY, P. J.

MORI, J.